who said the monomers began on earth? they began from stars. TECHNICALITY WIN!
but yeah, i was wrong there. :/


and where did the first eyes come from?

natural selection resulted in that organism passing on the same genes as everything else died. are there any other eye genes? thats like admiring two different species both synthesizing oxygen as their respiratory needs. if the gene works, it is the most efficient, it is the least susceptible to a mutation that would result in failure and failure to pass on genes then such a gene would be selected for. an extremely similiar gene would apply for a fish and a human in terms of fetus development. there is a reason why animals share a remarkable amount of DNA with each other.

note that they werent exactly the same, there were differences minute, ignorable differences, but they were similiar enough.


may you rephrase, are you suggesting that you mix and match cells? because i only need to say 2 things. natural selection. genetic material.

if you are sayign something else, im sorry, im illiterate.

ive already misinterpreted what you said about cells once, try dumbing it down


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
my link eats your link for breakfast.
so yeah... read through, i only skimmed unfortunately since i should be doing chemistry project >.>

nom nom nom nom.


you stated that random could not exist as the chance of random existing is exponentially too low.

wait... where did i say randomness drives life?


there is no choice. this isnt lamaarkian evolution. dont try to make it lamaarkian by bringing forth a word such as choice.

it is merely those that can get it on and those that die or cannot get it on.

none of them turned green as
1. none of them had a mutation in their allelle opening up a pigment change.
2. there were only 2 choices to begin with, mottley white. mottley black.
there were inbetweens, but no one cares about them...
if there was a recessive allelle for green then GREEN IT IS.


okay then. how did life begin?
intelligent design.
some deity force linked allelles together in a little pool of random chemicals?
or some beardy man breathing life into dust?
flying spaghetti monster prodding nothing with His noodly appendage and creating a midget, a tree and a mountain?
what is it? the fact that you havent told me where your beliefs fit in really does not help when i need an example.

ill start assuming scientologist.

btw. try not to double post~~

LAST SECOND EDIT!!!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
the headings

make you look silly, please do read these parts through.

From your link:



If you think this line of reasoning is convincing, then try again.

Again, here you are MAKING CHOICES. You have divided up the labor amongst various people, each person searching for HHHH. If you want to make this more realistic, what you need to do is check the order of each coin flipped total, not per person. Meaning, if 4 people flip the coin at the same time, that is 1 trial, not 4 different trials at phase 1.

The problem with sites like the ones you quoted are trying to look at this from a results point of view. I'm not talking about the results from the activities, I'm talking about all the "failed attempts". In the examples above, failed attempts happen. In reality, in life, we have no evidence of 80% of the failed attempts that should exist. For every protein that is used in life, we should have 20 (made up number) proteins that do nothing and just look like dirt.

I'm not arguing that life or evolution is impossible, I'm arguing that if you look at the actual physical data, CHOICES were made of which attempts to try. You have a very small fraction of all possible attempts ACTUALLY being attempted.

Natural selection is a result of myriads of intercepting choices. Nothing lamarkian about it.

If you don't like the word "choice", if that is too "human" for you, then feel free to replace the word choice with the lengthy phrase: "information is exchanged between observer and observed which alters the outcome of the reaction."

I think you just need to read up more on information theory.

"“The observer, when he seems to himself to be observing a stone, is really, if physics is to be believed, observing the effects of the stone upon himself.”"

“The universe as we know it is a joint product of the observer and the observed”

"The observer is herein studied as an aspect of laboratory physics. It is generally accepted that our status as observers is mediated by our material aspects: our body and brain. But, observers are typically equated with classical coordinate systems. An alternative, modelling the observer as a quantum entity, is considered. The corresponding transformations between two quantum observers affect the computed wavefunctions of other quantum entities in a physically meaningful manner."

You might also be interested in this news story:
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2 ... ement.html

Choice btw, does not necessarily mean deep thought or awareness of consequences. It just means that based on the information it received, it will go one way instead of the other.

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01 ... :int=0&-C=

Many different scientists have expressed this idea in various ways. Some call if mind, life, idea, choice, information. But it all comes down to the same thing. Randomness itself is not enough and doesn't explain what we observe.

hmmm i seem stumped as this is more philosophical now and playing with definitions and interpretations.

are we going to move into the field of the "goldilock universe" because to think that the physics could be different is to think that blue might be red and hippopotamuses could hypothetically be giant talking sausages with teleportation devices.
OR JUST MULTIVERSE THAT ....

amino acids are heated. at the current temperature, they make the choice to form a bond.

a rock receives information. information being a large kinetic force. rock makes the choice to roll over the edge of the cliff and hit someone in the face.

objects are bound by physics. amino acids will form certain proteins under the given conditions. not because some maker made the temperature like that, but because the environment is like that after all the friction and kinetic force from the young earth is converted into temperature. the rest is physics and naturally occuring bonds.

I'm not sure you understand what you are saying. But sure, I agree with you.

However, don't make the mistake of confusing reactions which happen on the atomic level, and macro reactions which appear to condratic the information that we have about the atomic level. This is one of the problems that information theory wishes to find the sollution to.

One hypothesized example I heard of is the following.

Lets say you find a crowd of 10,000 people going to a concert. It is currently possible with 99% accuracy to predict every action that crowd as a whole will make. (we are still figuring out the formulas to make that number 100%) I'm sure you are aware of the sciences and cool impressive computer models that they have done to make this so.

However, if you talk to each of those individual people, all 10,000 of them will tell you that they make their own choices and have independent free will. Yet, when you gather all of them into a mob, they are entirely predictable. This does not mean that the free-will is fake, it just means that all the wills of the crowd combined create a single predictable will. You would not be able to predict the every action of each individual of that 10,000 person mob, if they were outside of the mob.


When it comes to a rock rolling down a hill. You have some 10^25 atoms each responding to obverse/observed statuses, each making their own choices. However, since there are so many of them, they act in a very predictable fashion. (I'm sure you are aware of the double split experiment and how observations affect reality.) Since the information sent from your eyes to the rock moving is so small compared to the other information that each atom within the rocks sends to each other, our observations have a minuscule and appearingly 0 impact on that rock.


Now just remember, our eyes our minds, are just another collection of atoms in this universe. There is no essential difference between our information and the information traveling between all atoms, save for the level of entropy within the information sub system.

hehe, Condratic is a word that means "Contradict". It's caused by a process known as a typo.

The problem is that the knowledge we have in a Micro world, contradicts the knowledge we have of the Macro world. (Micro is how atoms interact, Macro is how molecules interact)

Basically you have Quantum physics(micro), Newtonian Physics("normal"), and Einstein's relativity physics(macro).

The three of them overlap, but they also contradict each other in various ways.

Peer pressure does not explain crowd behavior. It's the same mechanism that causes a flock of geese to fly in V, or a school of fish to swarm in the shape of a larger fish.

What IS kinetic force? What do you think kinetic force is made out of?

This discussion is starting to get silly.

What is "innate behavior", where does this behavior come from?
What is "peer pressure", some mystical force?

Why does something move when force is applied to it? What is the mechanism that makes this even possible?

I'm not sure what your story with gold is supposed to explain, or argue.

We know and understand how all these things work. They work via the transfer of information from one object to the next. Information, as has been proven, moves faster than the speed of light. However, this is impossible. (or so we thought) (you can look up the experiments of teleporting information faster than the speed of light on the net.)